Classic West L.A. - One Year Later

The band played a show in Ontario last night, exactly one year after playing their first show with Deacon and Vince in Los Angeles. Yes, it’s been a year.

At the time, Don H said it may the last time they played there, apparently unsure about the audience response and demand as well as how well they would gel together as a group on stage. No one knew for sure if the Classic concerts would be their last performances and there was speculation there would be a full tour.

These questions have been answered, as fan and critical reception have been quite positive. Second shows at different venues have been added and one in Florida saw its biggest concert crowd in its 82-year history.

Obviously not everyone has met this new line-up as a positive development. But clearly the sky did not fall, no one has forgotten Glenn, and the Eagles as they are now (I have never accepted the premise others have put forward that Don, Joe and Timothy are no longer Eagles b/c Glenn is gone) have shown they can still entertain and make fans happy.

The support that has been shown for Deacon has been heart-warming and he has only been getting better as a performer. Those of us who already knew of Vince Gill’s talent aren’t surprised he’s been an asset and he has gained respect and admiration from new fans. No wonder Don H said Vince was the only one they considered inviting into the band.

Going forward there have been rumblings about new music, and Don has said Deacon wants to write. If the band wants to continue after this tour is over and stay fresh then new music is imperative. Of course they may decide to “take it easy” and slow things down next year. They aren’t getting any younger, though Deacon has a bright future ahead of him with this year as a great springboard.

So has anything changed for anyone here on this board? What has been surprising and not-so-surprising? Time has a way of both softening and sharpening viewpoints. It would be nice to hear from those who have been mostly silent on this issue.

No, nothing has changed.

No Glenn Frey. No Eagles.

(Not complicated)

Nope, no change for me: No Glenn, no Eagles.

Hi Delilah, wow has it really been a year? I believe we have a couple of instances where Borderers have refined their original positions, but only one or two.

I understand and respect the "No Glenn No Eagles" contingent's position and that nothing will change it. I would like to ask this hypothetical question to that group - it is not meant to prove any point or serve as a strawman, it is a genuine question: If Don, Timothy and Joe performed together, along with members of the former-Eagles backing band, under a name other than "Eagles", would you be more upset if they didn't perform any Glenn songs, or if someone else sang his songs? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely curious. It seems that nobody begrudges the guys continuing to perform if they're not using the Eagles name - this something we all agree on. The question is how are they to handle Glenns' songs - ignore them? Or divvy them up between themselves or guests?

A year in to this, my firm belief was stated very succinctly by Dawn in the "No Glenn..." thread: "For me, I like to think all the money and fame in the world can not compare to the thrill of walking out on stage before thousands of fans many of whom will never forget the thrill of their first Eagles concert... I believe that THIS is the guys' motivation. Period. Not money, not legacy, not grieving for Glenn or feeling closer to him. The thrill of performing is all they know, it is ingrained in their blood for over 50 years, and they aren't quite ready to give it up yet. Again, I don't think anyone disagrees. Where we disagree is that I think Henley is within the bounds of propriety - legal, moral, emotional, music ethics - to use the name. Based on everything I have read, seen, heard, and learned about Glenn over the past six or seven years of my fandom, I think that Glenn would be delighted with the current tour.

We really shouldn't have to disagree here, imo. The thread for disagreement has been firmly established.

Having said that, I'm very happy for the ongoing success of our guys. They deserve it.

I haven’t changed too much but I think I’ve definitely grown an appreciation of the group that opposes the lineup. When I went to the classic east, I was completely unaware of any opposition to them touring. I’ve been a bit more skeptical of the official story being put out but I don’t think that they are doing the tour just for money. I think at their age, money is nice but this tour alone won’t drastically change their net worths enough for them to enjoy it in their lifetimes. I think it’s about money for their family, love for preforming, or in Don’s case, it’s about getting some of the family involved. I know Will Henley Deacon have preformed, Don’s daughter has been along, and so has Glenn’s daughter. So it’s definitely a mix of both the money and some other personal reason. Maybe not for Gill, but for the rest of them I think they have their own unstated reasons.

I can also say from the time I saw them at the classic east till now, my regret over never seeing them with Glenn has also grown considerably. I really wish I had been a fan back for the HOTE tour. Seemed to be a really special time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryCalifornia

Hi Delilah, wow has it really been a year? I believe we have a couple of instances where Borderers have refined their original positions, but only one or two.

I understand and respect the "No Glenn No Eagles" contingent's position and that nothing will change it. I would like to ask this hypothetical question to that group - it is not meant to prove any point or serve as a strawman, it is a genuine question: If Don, Timothy and Joe performed together, along with members of the former-Eagles backing band, under a name other than "Eagles", would you be more upset if they didn't perform any Glenn songs, or if someone else sang his songs? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely curious. It seems that nobody begrudges the guys continuing to perform if they're not using the Eagles name - this something we all agree on. The question is how are they to handle Glenns' songs - ignore them? Or divvy them up between themselves or guests?

A year in to this, my firm belief was stated very succinctly by Dawn in the "No Glenn..." thread: "For me, I like to think all the money and fame in the world can not compare to the thrill of walking out on stage before thousands of fans many of whom will never forget the thrill of their first Eagles concert... I believe that THIS is the guys' motivation. Period. Not money, not legacy, not grieving for Glenn or feeling closer to him. The thrill of performing is all they know, it is ingrained in their blood for over 50 years, and they aren't quite ready to give it up yet. Again, I don't think anyone disagrees. Where we disagree is that I think Henley is within the bounds of propriety - legal, moral, emotional, music ethics - to use the name. Based on everything I have read, seen, heard, and learned about Glenn over the past six or seven years of my fandom, I think that Glenn would be delighted with the current tour.

---

Hi Mary how are things going ? Everyone knows how I feel and I haven't changed my mind. However, that being said, I would have no objection with the guys and all the back up musicians touring together. Don. Joe and Tim could all share lead on Glenn songs. However they would not tour under the name "Eagles". This is just MHO and two cents worth. I certainly would pay to see them in concert.

Not gonna debate nor answer questions about my opinion that nothing has changed. No Glenn No Eagles

Second, I can not and will not engage in pure speculation about what Glenn Frey would think. For me that is an utter and complete waste of time.

With my memories popping up on FB of that weekend one year ago, I have been re-living my experience at The Classic West. It was a nice vacation for me and my family to visit some of the places in LA that the Eagles used to frequent. I have since seen the guys in Dallas last month and both shows were awesome!!

I was unable to see the Eagles prior to that trip for many different reasons and I do regret it. I would have liked to have seen them with Glenn, but I would have loved to have seen them when Randy was still there. But alas, neither happened. I did not want to pass up the opportunity once I had this chance.

I think that the original four went into to it together with the same dream and passion which was to get a couple of buddies together, make beautiful music, maybe tell a few stories, perform for their adoring fans and maybe make a few bucks along the way. I am not one that can say anyone should give up on their dream if the circumstances change, if you still hold that dream and you are able to go on then I believe you should for as long as you can. I am sure it is hard to give up something that has been in your blood for so long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by New Kid In Town

Hi Mary how are things going ? Everyone knows how I feel and I haven't changed my mind. However, that being said, I would have no objection with the guys and all the back up musicians touring together. Don. Joe and Tim could all share lead on Glenn songs. However they would not tour under the name "Eagles". This is just MHO and two cents worth. I certainly pay to see them in concert.

---

Hi New Kid, thank you for the thoughtful reply!

It bothers me more than it did initially - when I was sort of ok with it, but it just wasn't for me.

My thoughts on it have not changed, if anything I feel more strongly about them than ever before. To me the longer it goes on the more disgusting it becomes.

Put me squarely in the No Glenn, No Eagles camp. Don Henley has lost all of my respect. I'm going to keep it brief in this thread, but that's the jist of it from me.

To answer MC's question: I'd prefer them to focus on their own songs at this point. No one on earth is fit to sing Glenn's songs other than himself.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I knew nothing has changed for some folks, that’s a given but since it’s been a year I thought others might have different perspective. I absolutely agree with the comments about the guys doing this mostly b/c they love to perform, and it’s part of their DNA now.

I wish I could have seen them with Glenn too, as well as with Bernie and Don F but I’m grateful I got to see them at all. I was too young to see them when Randy was in the band.

Posting from Ireland where I'm visiting GlennsAllnighter!

Nothing has changed for me either. No Glenn, no Eagles.

If anything, I feel more validated now that I hear their voices are starting to go. Far from approving, I think Glenn would want them to call it a day if they can't perform at a high level. He had shown in the past that he was able to leave money on the table if he thought it was the right thing to do.

To answer Mary's question, I've always said I'd have had no problem with them doing this under another name. They could experience all the joys of performing together in front of an audience, have all the emotional benefits, involve Deacon and Will, everything they get from this. They would just be making less money from people who only care about seeing a group named the "Eagles" in order to check off that box, and thus wouldn't bother to turn up if the same men called themselves something else.

I'd say in that case, leave Glenn's songs alone, maybe do one as a tribute. Otherwise it comes off like a cover band.

I also do feel that it does not feel right with Glenn. He was intrinsic to the way they were in so many ways, from formation till music style. Also, with the more country route they're going, Glenn could be actually disappointed with the song choices. He wanted to veer off the country route, but ironically, they're going in that route again, in spite of trying to shy away from it in the 70's! (JMHO)

But then again, I don't feel as emotional or anything, because Felder was always my favorite member musically. I don't really care much about the post 1999 Eagles (to me, Generation 3.0) and also, I was a fan after Glenn's unfortunate death. But he was and still is of huge significance, and they really sound like a tribute band without Glenn. Their voices are getting really hoarse.

And about Classic West, I actually was kinda fine with it! I just thought, a few concerts here and there, and not so bad. But to do a pretty large scale tour like this is just dishonorable.

Lastly, I am getting kinda turned off by Deacon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cosec3791

I also do feel that it does not feel right with Glenn. He was intrinsic to the way they were in so many ways, from formation till music style. Also, with the more country route they're going, Glenn could be actually disappointed with the song choices. He wanted to veer off the country route, but ironically, they're going in that route again, in spite of trying to shy away from it in the 70's! (JMHO)

But then again, I don't feel as emotional or anything, because Felder was always my favorite member musically. I don't really care much about the post 1999 Eagles (to me, Generation 3.0) and also, I was a fan after Glenn's unfortunate death. But he was and still is of huge significance, and they really sound like a tribute band without Glenn. Their voices are getting really hoarse.

And about Classic West, I actually was kinda fine with it! I just thought, a few concerts here and there, and not so bad. But to do a pretty large scale tour like this is just dishonorable.

Lastly, I am getting kinda turned off by Deacon.

---

You make some good points especially the country direction they're going solidified with the hiring of Vince Gill. I also liked Felder a lot and believe his contribution to the sound and success of the band can not be understated. Same with Randy and Bernie.

I was lucky to see the original lineup several times and can assure you whatever the 'it" is that makes good bands become great bands they clearly had it from the get go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Posting from Ireland where I'm visiting GlennsAllnighter!

---

So happy to hear this, what an awesome vacation!!!! Enjoy, you two! I spent 4 nights in Dublin and wished I could have been there another month or so...

To the original question, like others have said, if I've changed my mind at all, it is that I'm even more convinced than ever that this band is wrong to continue under the name 'Eagles'. I have also made my thoughts known that I feel the way they pay tribute to Glenn in the current tour is horribly inadequate and disproportionate to his contributions, which disappoints me even more. So you can put me firmly in the #NOGLENNNOEAGLES camp.

As to MC's post, I have the following comments:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryCalifornia

If Don, Timothy and Joe performed together, along with members of the former-Eagles backing band, under a name other than "Eagles", would you be more upset if they didn't perform any Glenn songs, or if someone else sang his songs? The question is how are they to handle Glenns' songs - ignore them? Or divvy them up between themselves or guests?

---

I don’t feel as strongly about this one way or another, but I guess I would prefer if the band wanted to continue performing under another name that they not perform Glenn’s songs at all. As Soda said, it may be nice to perform one of his songs as a tribute, which is pretty much all they are currently doing now or they could dedicate another song to him. Either way, I would probably not be interested in seeing one of these shows either. However, I would certainly not be as critical of them. I understand that performing may be ‘ingrained in their blood’, so this would provide that opportunity for them, as well as, being equally as cathartic and healing for them. But, as Soda said, what it would not do is provide the same amount of cash. So, I can’t buy that money is not the motivator for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryCalifornia

Based on everything I have read, seen, heard, and learned about Glenn over the past six or seven years of my fandom, I think that Glenn would be delighted with the current tour.

---

MC - I would be interested in you sharing the basis for your opinion about this. I don’t want to rehash the same ole, same ole again, but I don’t recall anyone making an argument on this board about why they think Glenn would be ‘delighted’ with the current tour’. Of course, as we’ve said many times before, none of us know for sure how Glenn would feel, but on the contrary, his comments and actions over many years remained fairly consistent and lead me to believe that he would not have considered this lineup to be legitimate. I do believe he would be very proud of Deacon though.

So again, I do not intend to turn this into another debate thread particularly since these comments are off topic from the original post. But, it’s difficult for those of us that disagree to respond to your post. We either have to ignore it or state our alternate viewpoints.

I saw them at Classic West and most recently in Nashville back in March. I'm glad that their shows have been successful. At least in March I had not noticed and problems with their voices and those still remaining in the Eagles sounded at least as good as they did in July of 2015 when I saw them in Little Rock with Glenn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Posting from Ireland where I'm visiting GlennsAllnighter!

Nothing has changed for me either. No Glenn, no Eagles.

If anything, I feel more validated now that I hear their voices are starting to go. Far from approving, I think Glenn would want them to call it a day if they can't perform at a high level. He had shown in the past that he was able to leave money on the table if he thought it was the right thing to do.

To answer Mary's question, I've always said I'd have had no problem with them doing this under another name. They could experience all the joys of performing together in front of an audience, have all the emotional benefits, involve Deacon and Will, everything they get from this. They would just be making less money from people who only care about seeing a group named the "Eagles" in order to check off that box, and thus wouldn't bother to turn up if the same men called themselves something else.

I'd say in that case, leave Glenn's songs alone, maybe do one as a tribute. Otherwise it comes off like a cover band.

---

Absolutely. And a subpar cover band at that. There are Eagles tribute bands that sound better than they do now that I'd go to anyday before I'd go see what they are calling the Eagles now. They need to have some dignity left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ive always been a dreamer

MC - I would be interested in you sharing the basis for your opinion about this. I don’t want to rehash the same ole, same ole again, but I don’t recall anyone making an argument on this board about why they think Glenn would be ‘delighted’ with the current tour’. Of course, as we’ve said many times before, none of us know for sure how Glenn would feel, but on the contrary, his comments and actions over many years remained fairly consistent and lead me to believe that he would not have considered this lineup to be legitimate. I do believe he would be very proud of Deacon though.

---

Happy to share the basis for my opinion, at the risk of taking this thread off topic. But since you ask, here goes....the basis is my overall perception of Glenn is from HoTE, the books, articles, interviews, etc...the only quote I would attribute to him is "song power". To my knowledge, he never espoused "personnel power". Even though Randy was out of the band, Glenn thought it was important to perform TITTL, even if he maybe didn't want to, because the fans wanted it. But this is just one little quote from a long time ago.

The things that stand out in my mind about Glenn is that he did not treat his songs as precious, only to be presented to the public in a certain way by certain defined personnel. Especially during the HoTE tour and all of the interviews (and the documentary) at the final stage of his life, he seemed generous (spiritually, musically), content with life, well-traveled, well-educated in the music business, looking forward to what the future might bring, somewhat at peace with the band and Don (perhaps an uneasy truce with Don), grateful for his family, etc...etc...All of these are the types of qualities that in my opinion would translate to him being fine with the way the band has continued on. Of course, these characteristics of his and the jump to a conclusion about his thoughts on the current tour is all speculation, but it's how I think of him and what I base my opinion on.

Most importantly, however, is the fact that we know that Cindy is not afraid to call in the lawyers post-Glenn's death. As a lawyer, and as a long-time wife, I believe 100% that she absolutely knows his wishes, that his wishes as to the use of the Eagles name are firmly in writing with his attorneys and the band's attorneys, and that if he had meant to protect the name after his death from how it is being used, he 100% would have and she (and his and the band's attorneys) would have honored his wishes.

I forgot to say that as the parent of a teenage boy, not only do I think that Glenn would be proud of Deacon, I think he would be absolutely delighted and thrilled that his son is touring as the Eagles with Don, Tim and Joe. I don't think that if he knew what is happening now, these stadium shows with his family on the tour, if given the choice, he would put an end to it.

ETA: To me, there are NO negatives to Deacon's participating. He's out there, smoking his weed, traveling like a rock star, living the life, performing in front of millions to positive reviews and fan enjoyment. Some will cite that it is not his favorite genre of music, that he should forge his career path, that he's riding his dad's coattails, etc... From what I can tell, NONE of the Eagles' kids have careers, genuine careers (yes Lucy is a sometime actress and I don't know about Joe's other kids, but I do know about Don's and Timothy's). These offspring dabble in the arts, a little. I'm sure this was Deacon's path before this came up. He's having the time of his life for as long as it lasts, I say live and let live.

Since much of the discussion in this thread was lost when The Border had to be rebuilt recently, it looks like the thread was just left kind of dangling.

So, I don't know if anyone wants to repost their thoughts or not, but I just want to say that although we disagree, I do very much appreciate MC's response to my question.

I never got to see the Eagles when Glenn was alive I wish I had
I've bought tickets for the Manchester concert here in the UK next year.
Most bands go through several line ups and yes I understand it was Glenns band I've played Eagles music all my adult life I always liked Glenns voice.
How do I feel about Vince and Deacon? Vince was Glenns friend and has a good reputation as a country singer from what I've seen he looks like a nice guy. Deacon is Glenns son and he's got good reviews.
The reviews of the US tour I've seen have been good it's the most expensive ticket I've ever bought, I think of it as last chance to see.
I'm no longer working but i can understand Don Joe and Tim continuing to tour I'm sure they don't need the money but it's what they've done for years it probably defines them that's hard to change.
Are they still the Eagles? Yes sort of, I'll risk it.